Comments (15) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

   Interesting that Honduras doesn’t have a reciever.

2. 

   dwyant said, 4 months ago

   Where did you get the idea that IRAN was looking for liberty? You better study the facts!

3. 

   striper77 said, 4 months ago

   They could have all the countries that are large stock holders in the United States. They would have China as the major stock holder and chairman of the board.

4. 

   dtroutma said, 4 months ago

   Considering our actual involvement in those countries, should be just an answering machine stating, “You have reached the wrong number”.

5. 

   fritzoid said, 4 months ago

   “Others crave the liberty we once had; we, the lazy, give up our liberty for the nanny state.”

   Yes, those liberties which have been stripped from us in the name of “security”; the liberty which the statue guarantees that the tired, the poor, the oppressed of other nations will be granted shelter here (rather than being fenced out); the liberty that believes that those born into poverty are as deserving of the protections of society as those who, by accident of birth, have every desire catered to; the liberty to differ from the consensus of what’s “normal”; the liberty to have our votes, opinions, and interests counted regardless of our race or economic condition; the liberty not to have our laws written by mullahs, bishops, or other religious fanatics; the liberty not to have our laws written by the wealthy such as to protect their individual wealth at the expense the general welfare; liberty to fully enjoy the natural splendors of this country (including but not limited to unspoiled wildernesses, clean waters, clean air, and biological diversity) and have those beauties preserved for future generations…

6. 

   GNWachs said, 4 months ago

   fritzoid: I think many people might agree with many of the items on your list. Where we would differ is you have liberty to do/have those things for yourself. You do not have the liberty of demanding that government do them for you or others pay for them. Individual liberty not collective. eg: those born into poverty have the liberty to work hard and pull themselves out. Not to collect welfare from the productive.

7. 

   fritzoid said, 4 months ago

   Where wealth and well-being is treated as a commodity to be hoarded, then the “liberty” to amass it for one’s self is a DENIAL of liberty for all others. When all work, whether behind a desk or in a field, is valued equally and compensated commensurately, then we can start blaming the poor for their poverty. While those who by accident of birth are afforded access to educational opportunities, employment connections, or even the freedom to REFRAIN from work which are denied to the great majority of the population, then it’s a sham to pretend we believe that “all men are created equal.” While the economists debate among themselves what the “optimum” level of unemployment should be in order to keep the wheels of commerce spinning freely, it is rankly evil to hold ANYONE who looks for work but cannot find it accountable for their poverty. With the way wealth is currently distributed, there simply is NOT ENOUGH LEFT OVER for the masses of little fish to survive on, once the bloated groupers of Big Game fish (both corporate wealth and private fortunes) have had their feeds.

   Is it possible for an individual who is born into poverty to rise to the top of the ladder through perseverence and a Good Idea (and a whole lot of luck)? Yes it is, for a tiny minority (it happens just often enough for the fatcats to pretend they believe in social mobility; it’s like the State Lottery Commission trotting out one jackpot winner to keep millions of losers buying the tickets without complaining). It is possible, provided that this Good Idea isn’t stolen from him by entrenched corporate interests, or he hits the glass ceiling of promotion because some executive’s fraternity brother’s nephew needs a $100,000 per year job after getting a “Gentleman’s C” from business school.

8. 

   NoFearPup said, 4 months ago

   Dems to run on “Less Freedom, Right Now!” Platform in 2012: Tentative slogan: “Less Rights, More Porn!”. Republicans waffle and betray a secret allegiance to same platform, refuse to put up candidate.

9. 

   fritzoid said, 4 months ago

   What freedoms do you imagine the Dems want to take away from you? The freedom to stockpile combat weaponry? The freedom to cheat on your taxes? The freedom to beat up homosexuals, or fire them from jobs, or deny them housing? The freedom to poison the environment and strip our national resources to line private pockets? The freedom to force teenaged girls to bear the children of their rapist fathers? The freedom to keep higher education out of the hands of all but the wealthy?

10. 

    GNWachs said, 4 months ago

    How about my freedom of speech? It is called campaign finance reform and it basically says I cannot spend my own money promoting a candidate of my choice.

    A case will be argued before SCOTUS and they may throw out, as unconstitutional, the entire abridgment.

    How about Kelo, the taking of my private property to give to a private money making company.

    How about Ricci and affirmative action?

    The list of what the Dems want to take goes on for pages.

11. 

    NoFearPup said, 4 months ago

    How about less freedom from pernicious taxation and regulation?

12. 

    Gladius said, 4 months ago

    Fritz,
    Let’s just start with one comment of yours, “if we believe all men are created equal.” My question is in “whose eyes.” We are not created equal and it is time to get that off the table. All jobs are not equal in the eyes of society so what do you mean by equal compensation. What we need to work for is to give the best amount of opportunity possible. The odds are stacked against people by where and to whom they are born. This isn’t going to change. Improve access to education and manage to achieve a stable growing economy for the chance to do something with that education.
    Equality of opportunity may not be possible but is something to strive for. If you want everyone to be totally equal I offer the suggestion that you read Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut.

13. 

    David said, 4 months ago

    Funny all these countries call her, but we are calling her less and less as time goes by.

    Our God-given rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that word is “pursuit” and not “guarantee”. We have the right to dream and to follow our dreams and pursue happiness. We DO NOT, however, have the right to have our happiness and our dreams-come-true handed to us on a platter.

    I say how about less liars, cheats, and thieves in Congress? I say how about not re-electing that incumbent that has said one thing and done another over and over again. I say how about holding our government and it’s officials fully responsible for their actions for a change. I say how about ending the careers of some career politicians and replacing them with people who understand what it’s like to be an average hard-working American? How about those?!

14. 

    NoFearPup said, 4 months ago

    Hear, hear!

15. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    Dshepard: Sounds good as a sound-bite…but what about the Congressmen who are doing a good job? Should they be thrown out as well?

    Gladius: You make an excellent point by bringing up Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron”.

    Puppy: What sort of regulation are you talking about? This means you’re in favor of the Republicans’ removal of regulation of the financial markets, which led to the meltdown we’re now suffering? Or Bush’s removal of two decades of environmental regulations?

    Or do you mean you’re against the Defense Of Marriage Act, yet another of those pesky regulations? Given the only purpose of that Act was to hurt homosexuals, I’m thinking you’re probably in favor of that one.

    Nandy: Whose creator? Wait, let me guess: Whatever your mythology is, right?